Here we go again - Clattenburg accused of racism

The other thing that makes me wonder about the whole validity of this charge is that, Mikel didnt look all that bothered if Clattenburg said what he said?? Personally if that was me, i would have made a huge fuss there and then but he didnt seem to be all that bothered:confused:

It doesn't matter. Evra didn't seem too bothered about allegedly being called a negro 10 times by suarez.

The chelsea manager probably made Mikel storm in to have a go at Clattenberg at full time so these claims hold more water.

But the fact they have dropped the mata complaint from lack of proof, but stuck with the Mikel complaint suggests they have some evidence.

Let's not tarnish Mikel just because Chelsea's captain is racist, that has nothing to do with this complaint.
 
Chelsea are really having a tough time with racism at the minute.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ture-during-clash-with-Manchester-United.html

e71dao.jpg

Ban him from four games.
 
Negatory

he should get fined 2 weeks wages and suspended from ref duties for 4 games. What is good for the goose is good for the gander right ?????

Indeed you are right but lets be honest, if the allegations are found to be true then i wouldnt be surprised to see Clattenburg get sacked.
 
Indeed you are right but lets be honest, if the allegations are found to be true then i wouldnt be surprised to see Clattenburg get sacked.

That would place the FA into disrepute and make chelsea look like asshat clowns. Clattenburg at worst should get what happened to Suarez, but in fairness should be treated no differently from Terry, otherwise there is a serious flaw in the FA's processes for applying punishment in cases like this ?
 
It doesn't matter. Evra didn't seem too bothered about allegedly being called a negro 10 times by suarez.

The chelsea manager probably made Mikel storm in to have a go at Clattenberg at full time so these claims hold more water.

But the fact they have dropped the mata complaint from lack of proof, but stuck with the Mikel complaint suggests they have some evidence.

Let's not tarnish Mikel just because Chelsea's captain is racist, that has nothing to do with this complaint.

Your argument falls down because Evra lost the plot after the Suarez incident.
 
8146178625_8510d514b3.jpg


That made me laugh if only for the fact I have followed football for a few years at the back end of the 'bad' times and into the Premier League era

The only way you are going to weed out the cheats and racists in the game is by getting tough on the racists and the cheats. Without rehashing the whole Evra Suarez affair but If Clattenburg has said something that is openly racist or is contextually racist then he should be banned for life. Lets not go down the road of we all have black friends so I am not racist or to coin a phrase by some on here about 12 months ago, he has a black Grandad so automatically he can't be racist. It makes not one Iota of difference if he meant it as a Joke, in jest, a turn of phrase or whatever, if what he has been said has been received as a racial slur then he has to go.

Likewise if it is found by an independent panel that nothing has been said that is either outright racist or could be interpreted as racist then the book along with Manchester Central Library should be thrown at Chelsea for bringing the game into disrepute.

Racism and Bigotry whatever the colour have not place in the game.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree. I am not saying Chelsea can't complain, but I am saying they are coming out of this badly, simply because of the lightness with how they dealt with Terry.

Terry admited to using racist language on the field (thats not an accusation of him being racist), Chelsea freely accepted and admitted Terry's guilt of using said language, and then procedd to allow him to remain at the helm of the club as its captain.

Can you not see how bad a message that is sending. The FA with their inconsistent punishments don't help either. Suarez getrs 8 matches, Terry gets 4 ? how does that make any sense. If anything Terry's offence was worse because you could see what he said as clear as day on live Television, it was in English and exceedinly easy to see exactly what he said.

So for a club to accept all of this and then allow that same plauer to remain the captain reeks of hipocracy when they then start puting in complaints about referees and trying to take the moral high ground on 'racist' / 'inapropriate' language use on field when they have clearly been shown to not really be that bothered by not showing a zero tolerance policy against offenders in their own house.

If you called someone a ****ing Black **** at your place of work, would you still expect to have a job there ? moreover if you were in a position of authority or leadership in your workplace such as a manager would you still expect to retain that position after using the above language directed at someone ?

if the answer is no, then why is it so different for Terry ? Playing football is his job at the end of the day, the football field is his office, he used the language and he stills retains his 'managerial role' as if nothing happened.

Thats why people are ****ed off.......

Firstly, Suarez and Terry's punishment WAS consistent, Suarez got an extra 4 bans because he said a racial term MULTIPLE times. As for it being worse because "it was caught on tv", there isn't any logical argument you can make for that other than one particularly poor one. Unless you want to claim that racism is okay as long as other people don't see it, then Terry being caught on camera is neither here nor there.

As for hypocrisy, again, no, that was my entire point. If you ask for THE SAME TREATMENT OF OTHERS as you received, there is nothing that you could even consider hypocritical. Terry WAS dealt with by the club, he was fined, etc, etc. So, if someone else is guilty of the same crime, they can't ask for that to be dealt with? Again, use logic, if Terry got a red card for a bad tackle, does that mean no one at Chelsea can ever again acuse another team of commiting a red card offense? Even reading it you can surely see how that makes literally no sense.

They aren't asking for harsher, or worse treatment, they are asking for the same treatment. If a Chelsea player can be done for foul and abusive language, then everyone else who uses foul and abusive language should also be punished.

Ultimately, I hate racism, I also hate people who make "everything" racist so they have a cause to fight, rather than fighting actual racism.
 
It's funny how xenophobia is perfectly fine but racism isn't

You could say that about any form of discrimination. I find it odd how there is so much emphasis on racism compared to other forms of discrimination. Why is it seen as (more) ok to discriminate people with red hair(compared to say, the colour of their skin)? Should it not be about how it makes the person feel? Or is it to do with the days of slave trade and lynchings?
 
You could say that about any form of discrimination. I find it odd how there is so much emphasis on racism compared to other forms of discrimination. Why is it seen as (more) ok to discriminate people with red hair(compared to say, the colour of their skin)? Should it not be about how it makes the person feel? Or is it to do with the days of slave trade and lynchings?

I'm going to say it is to do with slavery and lynchings.

As for Loki saying context of how you said it doesn't matter if the person is offended that hardly makes sense if it isn't a racist remark but rather lost in cultural differences. Also what happens if a black person calls another ****** or if someone gets called a stupid white **** I can't see the same uproar occurring. I mean I've seen a certain footballer call others a ****** as a joke albeit not on the field, should they be banned for joking/having a laugh?
 
I'm going to say it is to do with slavery and lynchings.

As for Loki saying context of how you said it doesn't matter if the person is offended that hardly makes sense if it isn't a racist remark but rather lost in cultural differences. Also what happens if a black person calls another ****** or if someone gets called a stupid white **** I can't see the same uproar occurring. I mean I've seen a certain footballer call others a ****** as a joke albeit not on the field, should they be banned for joking/having a laugh?

No it does make perfect sense as that is one of the ways racism works.

I was out with my boys yesterday at the Cinema and we were killing sometime, and we were having a laugh about something or nothing. I called him a cheeky Monkey. Entirely safe because

A) He is my Son
B) He is White
C) We were all laughing at the same thing.

What if he was from a mixed marriage and I called him a Cheeky Monkey in a more serious tone without laughing. To passers by the context could have changed. Slightly less safe ground

Here's another example, when I was in my late teens my group of mates were all straight 100% English and I was the one who was half Scottish (if such a thing exists, although my Dad used to tell me it was the better half, I tend to agree at times) So as you can imagine a group of lads who played football together, went on the beers together, went to college and Uni together we were a close bunch but within that group the language was coarse and I often got referred to as the Thistle Licker.

'Get a round of drinks in you tight arsed Scottish ****'. Was common

Likewise my mate was often called Wingnut as he had massive ears. We had an Irish lad who was pretty poor at football he often got ripped. Quite often you heard shouts of WTH was that you effin Spud Muncher' And so it went we all had a derogatory term for each other that was safe and ok within our own social group we defined the boundaries of what we could call each other.

If somebody called us something outside our own social group of that nature then it is less safe.

Which leads me onto when Black on Black call each other the N word. If it is defined within their social group to use that word then that's no issue. No outside pressure or influence will change that. That is how social groups work in society and have worked since we have been drawing on cave walls and picking our own arses.

Racism or discrimination is very easy to understand. It's the context of the words used and then the historical context of it's meaning that will quite often define how it is received. Thats why calling you a whitey will have not one iota of difference. The white social group has never been discriminated against. (Interesting to see if that changes over the next couple of hundred years). You call a black guy the N word then there is more social context to that due to how blacks were enslaved and discriminated against. All well and good saying oh they should get over it that was years ago. However as I mentioned above outside influences very rarely change the mechanics of what is and isn't acceptable to any social group.

Thats where the argument fails of I have black mates so I cant be racist but............... I have muslim mates so I cant be racist but..............

We can are and have all been guilty of discrimination be it actively or passively
 
Which leads me onto when Black on Black call each other the N word. If it is defined within their social group to use that word then that's no issue. No outside pressure or influence will change that. That is how social groups work in society and have worked since we have been drawing on cave walls and picking our own arses.

Exactly what I have been saying (in more general terms), but Baz knows better it seems

Speaking to a lot of people in the last few days (from the pub, from work and from long -standing family friends) from widely different backgrounds /up-bringings its thought to be very difficult indeed to racially abuse each other (as they are effectively racially abusing themselves at the same time). It doesnt have the same context and therefore seriousness of offence.


It is very interesting that also no-one thought it possible to racially abuse a white person (because of no previous historical context as you mentioned above) , even though (for example) say it should still be equally offensive with a white person in a predominantly different racial-occupied area / country
 
The hypocrisy in football is staggering. The Liverpool fan caught making monkey gestures at Patrice Evra earlier in the year was banned from attending matches for 4 years whereas John terry gets banned for 4 matches. I know Terry was found not guilty in a criminal court but what would his punishment have been if he had been found guilty? You can bet your life it wouldn't have been a 4 year ban.
 
So the person who is being talked to can decide if the other person is being racist even if they aren't in through slightest due to what the words mean to then?

Also all racism should be treated equally, not more for black people due to historical and I'm sure still very current issues in some countries, white people have still been actively discriminated against, once you start separating the two that is basically racial discrimination.
 
Back
Top Bottom